So WHAT is the big deal if Jesus were married?

[mntleo2]

Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I post this here because something tells me that if I were to post it in the "religion" section of DU, I would get bombarded, lol. I think it is more likely to have a much more enlightening and lively yet respectful discussion here.

So Harvard is going to release a book somewhat supporting an indication that Jesus was married. I know, I know we have almost 2000 years of tradition that Jesus was not married. But now questions has been thrown into the mix with a tiny paprys being studied at Harvard University where Jesus is referring to a woman (most likely Mary Magdellan) as "his wife" (link below).

Frankly it makes far more sense to me that Jesus would be married. As a Rabbi, it was expected to be married as was proper in his time. Also it is quite clear the Peter, the first pope (well not officially a "pope" since the church had not yet been officially established, but he was the leader of the sect that was forming) was married. To me, being a married man actually makes Jesus far more credible and well, ...he becomes much more accessible.

I was raised as a child in "the good ol' time religion" of Christianity, but I have studied with some very credible people around biblical history. It began when as a young woman I read the Bible cover to cover. It took me almost 5 years because I kept coming across cryptic scripture that led me to study biblical history in an attempt to enlighten it, referring to whatever credible information I could.

For instance, I found and read Wooley's notes on his digging up of UR (where Abraham grew up). I forget his first name but Wooley was one of the first "methodical" archaeologists and the notes were from around the 1920s still in my county library today. It was fascinating to me because his notes indicated that Ur seemed to have kind of "neighborhoods" where followers of different cults resided. The "one God" neighborhood was full of fetishes of kitchen gods, fertility gods, etc. So it appeared to me that Abraham was not so purely "monotheistic" as was supposed. But I digress ...

Then I studied with and questioned at length one of my ministers who was a former priest who had spent 20 years in Israel as an archeologist. He informed me that there is *no* archeological indications that David or Solomon existed, which was a theological shock, lol.

I studied in the Greek with a Greek Orthodox friend who translated the old Greek to English with the help of her Orthodox priest. THAT was more than enlightening to me, because it showed Jesus to be a man who could be called an "old soul" in my later spiritual studies. My faith was particularly challenged when we came across the scripture, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light..." which most Christians use as "proof" Jesus was saying he was the Messiah. But in the Greek it says, "I am revealing to you the Way and the Truth and the Light..." In other words Jesus was *not* saying he was the Messiah at all, he was saying he was a messenger. This stunned both my Greek friend and me (my friend was translating but she said it was like reading old English so she struggled almost as much as me, lol). So we went to our respective ministers (mine being the former archeologist) and they both confirmed it was indeed what we had read.

I studied for awhile with a Doctorate of Hebrew, a former Orthodox Jew who had lived in Israel as a translator of ancient texts because he could read ancient Aramaic and Hebrew like you and I read English. He was also a linguist and could trace language, so he was a big help when it came to stuff I wondered about because I could not trust the translations. I figured and he confirmed that most Greek Christian New Testament texts are translated originally from Aramaic and most likely Hebrew, particularly if the scribe and story teller were Jewish. I questioned him on what things could mean. For instance I read in John, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God ..." I wondered what the HELL does this mean? If it was first translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew, then what and why was John using the word "Word" as a figure of speech for Jesus? My friend helped me out by tracing that word "Word" through the English, then the Greek, then the Aramaic and Hebrew and it means "first breath". That is the "first breath" a baby takes when they are born, which it was believed was drawing the soul into the body and giving them life. This "first breath" is the "spark of God " we all possess.

So much for the dummass and WRONG "a cell is a person" theory. LOL!

It went even further when I met some East Indian Christians whose own church they say was established by the Apostle Thomas. They not only believe in reincarnation as is traditional with their Hindu brethren, but they say that during Jesus' "lost years" he came to India and studied with the learned Yogis who recognized him as a "great soul" (mahatma) and that he had also studied as a child when he was in Egypt, tutored by the old priests of that culture.

I am not saying I have any corner market on my historical aspect of Jesus since my studies were undisciplined and "wild". I followed tracks that were not traditional, not at all like the education that scholars at places such as Harvard have had. It was always on my own without the benefit of any formal collegiate training, something for which I have a great respect. I have tried to predominantly follow things from "traditional" scholars even though there have been lots of "nontraditional" stuff thrown in. Like when I read Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels from the Princeton theological School where she described early church priests who were both female and male depending on a lottery that was held every year, which was fascinating and very thought provoking.

Still it is fascinating to me that this marriage stuff is being even discussed at this high of a level as the Harvard Divinity School. They say this paprys is most likely not a fake (though that is still up for discussion).

At any rate, from what I can see, I like that Jesus could have been married. So what? That is what I say ...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Inside-Story-of-the-Controversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html

[glowing]

1. Fascinating. Thank you for posting this here.

And like you, I don't see the big deal in Jesus being married (it would be unusual for him not to be married).

I've also always had this internal "knowing" that incarnation or souls returning to live another experience is a choice that is totally plausible for a soul to do. Why wouldn't it? It makes less sense that a soul could not choose to be re-born. (I'm not so into thinking that an incarnation of a "lower species" is essentially "punishment" or "kharmic baggage"... so keep a moral, straight life OR Else! Rather I feel that a soul in its ethereal state can choose who and how and where to be born again to grow as a soul or to be helpful as a guide to others).

The reason in depth study of Theological scripts is threatening to religions is because an analysis of history along with the stories, can end up making the religious institutions irrelevant. If the leaders of learned theology (the bible in this case), were shown to be interpreting the script wrong, then they could lose their followers.

[mntleo2]

2. Threatening, yes! Silly to be threatening? Yes, lol

...I do not think this would have to make churches irrelevant, IF they but embraced its meaning.

I often have the debate with Christians about abortion after learning what I have about that afore mentioned meaning of the reference to Jesus as "Word" in John. They have nothing to say about it after that. It does not change their mind, however, even though the entire culture in Jesus' time embraced this attitude that life begins at birth. Jesus never questioned that belief if he had some sort of "mysterious" knowledge from God with Whom he supposedly was in constant communication Who would surely have questioned it if it were relevant. Abortions happened then as now. While the more children the better in Jesus' culture, still in order to not have pregnancy while traveling across the desert, doctors could insert a seed into the uterus (many seeds such as the apple seed contain strychnine and so does the apricot seed, which makes the uterus "hostile" to the planting of sperm). Prostitutes had to routinely do it in order to be able to ply their trade without children. This was not an unknown practice.

But instead the intentional ignorance continues. Sexuality has become so distorted in our conservative churches, particularly among women, we are seeing the overt destruction of a woman's rights to her sexuality imposed upon her by mostly men. We also see very perverted behavior by these same men twisting love into something sick with children. They hide their own sexuality with other men when all of nature shows that God created gays too. The very idea that Jesus may have had a sexual relationship is foreign to them. They even had to make Mary Magdellan a prostitute (which she was never called in their own scriptures) rather than admit she may have been Jesus' wife. Talk about heresy, especially if Jesus himself even called Mary his "first disciple" much less his wife (recorded in the newly discovered Gospel of Thomas who also says he publicly "kissed her on the mouth" a scandalous thing in his time for any woman including his wife) ~ the whole inclusion of this woman was a VERY radical thing to do in his time!

This is why those Very Serious Conservative Christian leaders are almost laughable to me as they show their ignorance every time they open their mouths. Many religions and Mysteries in the world say that the Universe is powered by Love. If these churches would but admit that we humans are sexual creatures and that Love can manifest itself in many ways. It should mean that real Love comes from God. This should indicate that any real love is not decided by themselves but it is of God, and if we saw this, we would come a far way towards eradicating a lot of needless agony, IMO.

My two cents

Cat

[Cleita]

3. What bothers me about Jesus maybe being married is that

besides no mention of a wife in the gospels, there is also no mention of children. Unless Mary was barren, the semi-divine children of the Son of God would be very important in the early Church. Also, since there was no problem mentioning the wife of Peter in the gospels, why not Jesus's wife?

I was always of the opinion that he could have been gay. This was not considered a perversion in the ancient world and was openly and widely practiced. It doesn't mean that he wasn't a celibate. Someone in that time who followed the Essenes, which it seems that he and his cousin John did, could take vows of celibacy excusing them from marriage.

Also, was he really a traditional Rabbi or just given the name as an informal honor because of his wisdom? It would seem that Rabbis should be literate to be able to read the Torah and there never seems to be much of an indication that Jesus was literate. Why wouldn't he have written down his own words if he were?I believe the only time in the gospels that he wrote something was that he wrote on the ground when they wanted to stone the woman taken in adultery and we don't know what he wrote and even if it was words or just symbols.

Oh, I went to Catholic school and drove my religious teachers crazy with these and many other questions. Of course, the ultimate question is that if Jesus did in fact exist and was popular enough to make the establishment and the Romans uncomfortable, why is there no other mention other than a fleeting one by Josephus, I believe, other than The New Testament? Could Jesus be a generic name given to a number of itinerate preachers that were all over Palestine at that time stirring up rage against the Romans and their puppet kings, Herod for instance. In this case, some of them could have been married. One or two may have been crucified.

It was so long ago and the stories were passed down by word of mouth until scribes wrote them down, who never had known Jesus. It would be as if the Civil War stories had been passed down by word of mouth and recently put in writing. The stories would be somewhat different than what actually happened. Just giving you some food for thought. I'm not trying to bombard you. It's a fascinating subject for me too.

[Tsiyu]

20. I read a few books a while back

and cannot remember titles, but they had to do with the possible "spawn" of Jesus.

One theory posits that "Holy Grail" actually means "Holy Blood" when properly translated, and that the search for the Holy Grail was really a search for Jesus' descendants.

Mary - his wife - and their child or children may have been ushered off to France or Italy or anywhere, so they say. One book was a study of centuries of religious artwork looking for telltale signs of a "cult of Mary" and analyzing changes over the centuries of the ways Mary Magdalene and the Virgin Mary were depicted.

Lots of theories have been around for a while.

Interesting topic.

[Cleita]

22. That was what the whole "DaVinci Code" book was about. n/t

[Tsiyu]

24. Ah...I only read one of those books

The second one, maybe, set in ROme? My memory is not so sharp.

These books were more alternative publishing works...interesting stuff.

[Cleita]

26. Browne is a pretty awful writer. I'm going to assume they became best sellers

because of the subject matter, not his prose.

[Tsiyu]

27. I remember being NOT impressed

enough to read the rest of the books. The one I read was in a box of used paperbacks someone gave me, and I was bored....obviously

Wish i could remember the names of the other books about the whole Mary-Wife-Of-Jesus thing, though. They were very interesting, even if speculative on the issue.

[FarPoint]

21. The current gospels were "cherry picked" with others being say, lost.

I'd love to know the real truth..

[Cleita]

23. Maybe there is still a jar out there in the desert with undiscovered scrolls that

might give us the real story. I wish there were writings out there that are closer to the time of the events that supposedly happened. Wouldn't it be cool if in some ancient library somewhere, they could find maybe the census that Augustus took when Jesus was born and a record of his crucifixion. I'm sure the Romans must have kept records about those matters. We know what happened to Vicentegorix, the Gaul Chieftain, because Julius Caesar, the Roman who took him prisoner and eventually executed him, wrote it down.

[mntleo2]

28. Wow Great insight!

Yeah the only historian the Church seems to refer to is Josephus who did mention this obsucre faith based on some man from Nazareth.

As Jesus' own peers said when people were following him in droves, "What good can come out of Nazareth? It sounds like this was a town with a "history". LOL

Love, Cat

[teenagebambam]

4. I've never understood it.

I was introduced to the idea by a Presbyterian minister/college professor, with whom I travelled to Israel on a study abroad trip. While he was very pious, well-versed in Biblical archaeology, a really great example of what a Christian can be, he was equally as convinced that Jesus MUST have been married.

[yellerpup]

5. There are several clues I find plausible that lead

to a conclusion that Jesus would have had to be married. First, he was called rabbi by his friends and family, and publlicly. In those days, only married men could be rabbis. Also, at the wedding where a bride named Mary was getting hitched to an unspecified suitor and Jesus' mom (also Mary) confronted her son about there being no wine the minute he walked in the door. Tradition was that the groom provided the wine for the wedding, so who but the mother of the groom would freak that the wine hadn't been delivered to the reception? Jesus kind of laughed it off then miraculously produced all the wine for the wedding, thus fulfilling the groom's obligation. Anyway, these details tweaked my attention years ago, especially the silly-sweet story about a groom teasing his mother and having it backfire a little bit.

I haven't read the link yet, but I'll check in with it tomorrow.

[mntleo2]

6. The link is fascinating to me ...

...and frustrating at the same time because the paprys is just a part of something bigger. It says in that article (and it is common knowledge) that paprys like this are usually cut up and sold piece by piece. Nobody knows where the other pieces are. They could be lying in some museum basement in "controlled atmosphere", some rich guy has them, or somebody living in the area where it was found could be hoarding the rest in order to sell more pieces and make more money.

In a way the saddest thing about this is about the power and money ~ which indeed seems to be the "root of all evil". By controlling this information, they in essence keep the entire world in darkness. Over the centuries religious leaders distort the message because keeping people in ignorance was SO much better for THEM. They manufacture guilt, which as we see in the mega-churches is the way to get people to give all they have in hopes this will somehow be the key to heaven. We see it as the "pious" hid Truths in order to possess "secret" knowledge that kept them in elevated positions.

I can no longer stand to go into one of those mega-churches. The last time I went it was a big money-fest with these "ushers" holding long poles with velvet pouches hanging at the end. Over and over they went up and down the aisles shoving those poles across the aisles as the minister railed. But the worse came after the services. In the lobby was a vast marketplace with "Christian" merchandise being hawked. Many of these "stores" were from large well known corporations like McDonalds, but there were also local "Christian" retail people selling anything from religious books to plumbing services. It was beyond disgusting.

My sister was shocked and disturbed because on the way home I told her, "That place is evil. All I could imagine was Jesus going through that giant lobby and turning over the tables ..." She was angry at me because she saw nothing wrong with what was going on at that church ~ while giving what little money she had ~ in $5.00 increments she held carefully to be able to put in those long poled-velvet bags every time it was waved under her nose.

But see, I was part of the Sanctuary Movement in the 1980s where the Liberation Theology those mega-churches now profit, was put to GOOD use. Jerry Falwell and his ilk distorted it in order to use it to make $$$$$$$ for themselves so they could live in mansions and fly on private jets. This was certainly *not* the same thing as when our government assassinated Archbishop Romero who stood up to the Vatican (and the US) to empower the people with sharing their resources with one another instead of giving it all to the rich as serfs. He made it clear he was not going to allow his people in El Salvador to starve and be victims of our proxy war and that sharing was the way to quietly and non-violently change their System.

I met some of the people fleeing there from El Salvador and the good church people of all sects who participated in America to help them to safety. They did not profit from Liberation Theology, like those hypocrites such as Pat Robertson and those liars. Many fine upstanding mainline church people put their own lives on the line to help get those people out of there. THEY were tried for treason, thanks to the Reagan administration who prosecuted them while fawning over these churches getting rich off the same theory. Those churches are evil IMO.

But we have not learned from history. Indeed I know that "history repeating itself" is not just about people not knowing enough to NOT repeat it, but it is actually being manipulated by people who have learned quite well about how history repeats. Using the name of God in vain, they are busy making SURE it repeats to their profit. Now these hypocrites are trying to insinuate themselves into our government and into people, especially women's lives in order to control them. They distort the Truth and make Love a sin, it is blasphemy at its worse.

So, thanks to the paltry studies I have done, I have come to a place where I do not care what religion they may be. If they push themselves and their agendas on others who suffer because of it, they are disgusting. This marriage of Jesus to me epitomizes the whole insidious thing because it seduces good people into the giant sucking hole that people like Falwell, Robertson, Fr. Donahue and all their ilk promote. It does not seem to register that what these hypocrites preach produces nothing but war, famine, poverty, inequality, death,and misery. I also feel the same about any other religion that produces the above. None of them are doing good unless they stop the greed, refuse to hurt anyone, and love their neighbors. Otherwise they are just another pathetic person or group letting his/her/their greed and lust for power control them.

Matthew 7: 16-23: "...16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them..."

My 2 cents (again, lol)

Cat

[yellerpup]

8. Loved the Smithsonian article.

This fragment is quite the find! While I am interested in history, religion does not speak to me. I haven't been to church since my Aunt Betty kicked me out of bible studies for asking 'the wrong questions.' She told me I didn't belong, and she was right. There is nothing written about Jesus that is not to like. If he was trained in the Essene tradition, and his travels, his years in the desert, the age he became a rabbi (32, the age Essene trainees earn their rabbinical wings) all point to the likelihood that he was, then he would have been celibate until his wedding. He said, "My wife..." I do not doubt that quote.

Good trees that bear good fruit proliferate all over the world and for that I am truly thankful.

[get the red out]

7. I forgot where I heard this BUT

One thing is that if Jesus were married, the Catholic Church wouldn't have a leg to stand on in preventing its Priests from getting married; which at first was for purely economic reasons and to prevent anything that the Priests had financially from becoming the property of heirs upon death.

Now, I think it has morphed into the weird sexual aversion that Christianity has taken on over the years. And also for Jesus to have been married to a stinky, filthy WOMAN further humanizes women, which Jesus did enough of any way, the scoundrel , which is one of the last things most Christian Churches want to see happen. Christianity can keep an iron grip on men so long as they permit men to own women and children; that way they don't see how much they are slaves themselves.

That darned Jesus, the more that comes out about him the more damage is done to the Christian way.

[Ricochet21]

9. Someone should have asked Jesus

"What would Jesus do?" Hell, I'm all FOR women, I've had to tie my hands down so many times when I've wanted
to write lengthy articles on what JERKS MOST MEN are. But, I restrained.

Come on, ladies, you have to save the world. Men (or mostly) just screw it up.

Now, we're watching religions fall, thank you Neptune and Pluto.

[mntleo2]

11. Women can be jerks too, unfortunately

...I know this is off subject but as a woman I need to address that, lol.

Some women fall into the "mean girls" role where they can drive someone to the mental institute and then bat their eyes and say, "I didn't TOUCH her/him..." I saw it a lot with women managers who had no more heart than their male peers and bosses.

When I was a young feminist I heard that if women ran the world it would be more family friendly, respect the work of women and give them equal pay for equal work. But many women look the other way as managers and bosses when these very things are occurring. When a woman has kids, they can be no less demanding and just as inflexible as men. Their "bottom line" philosophy is as cruel and demanding as any man. As a matter of fact I grew to prefer men to women bosses because most men seemed more understanding and at least a man would not know any better. But it is VERY damaging when a woman who had power over other women did it, because she should know better about the challenges for women who work for a wage. Women often have TWO full time jobs in the home and family requirements with kids, elders, and sick spouses and to see other women look the other way with this is ...beyond painful. These women should know that accommodating those barriers will actually HELP productivity not make it worse as the lack of accommodations do. I also saw a lot of the "gossip, group gang" mentality with women more, so they imposed their rules much more arbitrarily than a man did.

A story about a work experience that might help as an example:

One time I worked with two men who were long time good friends. They ate lunch together, they went fishing together, they were best men at each others' weddings. One day one of them announced at a meeting they were leaving and moving on to another job. On the way out the door, the other friend punched this guy HARD on the shoulder and said, "You bastard! You are LEAVING me here!"

I smugly thought as I walked behind them, "This is not how women would be to their friend. They would be happy for them, hugging them and letting them know how great that will be..."

But over the next few days I could not get this out of my mind because well, I began to admit some things for myself and what I knew of other women. I realized my "support" for a friend would also have those same (pretty buried) feelings that I could not speak to that these male friends had with one another. I realized that friend was being honest with his friend about his sense of abandonment.

I did imagine that later on, perhaps over a beer, that male friend would let his friend know how proud he was for him and how happy he was that that guy was moving on to better things. And in the same way perhaps, a female friend might boo-hoo with her friend and express her sense of abandonment over dinner together. But see the different way men and women seem to operate?

Whenever I tell this story it is important to see how each sex reacts. To men, this way of women is too "dishonest". To women, the way that friend reacted was too "confrontational". I tend to prefer the confrontational way because at least I know where the hell I stand and it is usually up front.

Until then I could not understand how it was that on-the-job, many times I would see men almost get to fisticuffs over something. But then at the end of the day, they would throw their arms around each other and say, "Hey, let's go have a beer ..." I'd be thinking, "What the hell? they were just yelling at each other two hours ago! How do they do that?" If that kind of incident happened between two women, that would mean WAR from then on. Maybe they would work it in some heart-to-heart talk ~ but there would be *no* forgiveness or trust for years to come ~ and a whole lot of back-door undermining that nobody else would understand.

While I can see that both sexes possess the same feelings, they go about dealing with it in different ways. And women can be VERY cruel and insensitive when they hold a grudge (not that men do not do the same, it is just more ...open).

At least with a man I know where I stand. Because we often beat up on men for that honesty and thanks to what I have seen, I no longer ascribe to feminism, I say I am a "humanist" tho I know that self-label is not quite accurate for me. Men have a right to be who they are too!

I will say the ways of women work better in business because that kind of "passive aggressive" behavior is more subtle and therefore more hidden. It is hard to confront it when it is hidden behind "good intentions" which in reality is about something else completely. Still I LIKE to not have to guess what the agenda is, I LIKE the way men deal with it ...but I have to admit that, as a woman, sometimes that male forthrightness is hard to take even though I have now raised 3 sons who have "broken me in" so to speak, lol

My 2 cents ...

Love Cat

[get the red out]

13. You misunderstand feminism

It is not about women ruling the world it is about equality between the sexes. Both male and female energies are necessary and need to be respected. With imbalance the cannot contribute their most positive aspects to the whole.

In many cases women will support a male dominated approach in order to personally benefit, this is no different than men doing it. We are all capable of selfishness and nastiness, we are equal in that way also.

[mntleo2]

15. Oh I was there in the beginning in my city ...

...and yes it is about equality, but the "argument" for feminism was originally about the "more humane" way women would be in governing and business. They are not as a whole as they have simply adopted a very male model. I was there.

Feminism has hurt low income women a great deal. The new feminism wanted women to "get out of the kitchen" and into the work force (Betty Freidan, The Feminine Mystique). All this was fine for upper class women who could look forward to a livable wage, even if not paid equally. But for lower income women, which these feminists participated in refusing to support the traditional work that women do, they merely burdened these women with more work because no longer were they supported for the traditional work such as care giving, community weaving and their work in the spiritual community.

NOW supported the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act (Welfare Reform). This has forced poor women into McJobs that do not even pay the rent. Hillary Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of this garbage. As a matter of fact, many of these women have to now work off their welfare in slave labor for non-profits and for profit corporations. They work for less than $.50 an hour with no breaks, no other assistance and do the same work as paid employees while undermining unions and paid work. Why hire a paid worker when you can not only get them for free but get more government goodies for "being so nice"?

Hillary Clinton oversaw this treatment in NYC where she worked with Guilliani to force welfare workers into the replacement of good union jobs. Welfare Rights groups got so frustrated with her, they threw waffles at her office because they said their cries went unheard. The topper that galled many of we poor was when she and Lieberman went around the country crowing about how "successful" Welfare Reform was. NOT! They no longer are supported for their family obligations and are told this work is "doing nothing".

Here is the most insidious of this: Welfare Reform did nothing to stop poverty, the only thing it did was lower the rolls. THIS is what Clinton and Lieberman crowed about. These idiots have no idea where those unsupported families went, what has happened to them or what they are doing now. I can tell you where these people are: working for pennies on the dollar, on the street homeless, unable to feed their kids and their kids are considered fodder for blame.

Feminism in its purest forms is fine. What it has done in practice is horrible for millions of women. The other problem I see with it is its ridicule of men and who men are so that men are now ashamed of being men. this translates into the schools as well as the work place. Girls are now supported and lauded, but a boy is considered not worth the time.

I have seen things like the workplace denigration of men. God forbid if a man is being a man, why they are "jerks" for being manly! Once I saw a man getting his crotch grabbed while other women who were his superiors looked on and laughed. He did not DARE tell anyone because he did not want to make trouble. But I told him, he should file a complaint and I would back him up as a witness, and that if any man had done that, not only would he be fired, he would be in jail. The man was too scared to report it.

Women lose on the average of $400,000 over a work life time because of care giving, according to the AARP. They not only have to make the agonizing decision whether or not to work for a wage, but for the 24/7 care of a loved one. Thanks to feminism, this is now considered "doing nothing" because a bunch of upper class women wanted their equality, to hell with the rest of us. According to the AARP if we were to replace this unpaid work with institutions, it would cost over $450 Billion so that women can go out there making rich men richer saying, "Do you want fries with that?" http://www.aarp.org/home-family/caregiving/info-10-2012/home-alone-family-caregivers-providing-complex-chronic-care.html

I do believe that true equality will free us all, IF we can all be who we are. I believe that equality is great IF we can give women more choices whether to work for a wage or care for their loved ones. But women in business and the government have just simply adopted the male-dominated patterns. They have done little or nothing to change things for the better ~ especially for the poor. They have done plenty to change things for themselves that trickles down to low waged women, but they ignore the plight of millions of families who now have no safety net, thanks to their applause. As a matter of fact Social Security calls this work as "zero years", leaving these care givers living in their cars when this care is finished.

As someone who straddled the time when women were supported while staying at home and then when we went into the workforce in great numbers, the treatment of women in the work force is "better" but her work at home is languishing and has *never* been supported. All of this created and applauded by so-called "feminists". Their female-dominated field of social work look down upon and treat poor women as if they made a "choice" to be poor when in fact poverty is an institution that they themselves depend upon for their own jobs. Poverty is not a "choice", lots of people depend on poor people to maintain their own class and keep this institution in place, thanks to "feminism". Women STILL make $.70 for every man's $1.00 and they do not see any time soon it will be any different. My sons, young men of color, are now considered "jerks" because of this philosophy. While denigrating women and dismissing men, feminists like Steinem, Clinton, Freidan and their ilk have actually put even more on the backs of poor women because now they are not supported for the work these elitist women ridiculed.

My 2 cents
Cat in Seattle

[get the red out]

16. Equal in selfishness

We can all be equal in selfishness; but I think that's the root of the problem rather than the idea that men and women are equal. I see it as a problem of our consumer-driven society where there is less and less of a middle class and if you are not part of the "ruling class" then you are nothing. Anyone who is not "white collar" is looked down on now. There is no dignity given to honest work no matter who is doing it, everything is about pushing paper destroying someone elses livelihood and "getting ahead".

I very much agree with you on perceptions of feminism that are all about women with careers; that has always made me sick. In a sense, that's using feminism to take on the very character flaws that are pointed out in elitist men, which changes nothing really. In a way the very word "career" gets on my nerves because it sets people above others so easily.

I still consider myself a feminist though, because without equality we have nothing, not even our bodies. The religious right wants women to have no control over reproduction or be able to have work outside the home, and be so dependent on men that they must take what is dished out; the dark ages. I don't want my nieces to have to live as slaves when they grow up.

[mntleo2]

17. What you say is beautiful!

Really your love shines through and I did see something quite remarkable. I have this Love too, but man, it has a little tarnish on it because of my anger because of the consequences for "loving" the wrong things sometimes, lol.

Yes selfishness has no corner market on men, but especially in religion, selfLESSNESS is required. Whether Left or Right any woman who embraces religion there is *no* excuse. Religious leaders who encourages this nonsense that hurt women while proclaiming themselves religious, really need to be taken to task. As someone who has come from the beginning of feminisms and someone who lived VERY low income while working 60 hour weeks to raise my kids, speaking to this injustice is my job, IMO, lol.

Yesterday I was laughing with an old DU friend about just that. She said she was pretty sure she was sent by God to prod these religious leaders on. She said, "There is no excuse for all they not do while feeling so pious about keeping their deliberate ignorance about the poor. It is not like their prophets did not tell them. They chose that road and now they expect it to be smooth and well paved. It may not be pleasant or "fun" to hear what they need do if they want to call themselves religious leaders, but there is work we have been talking about for decades they refuse to do anything about. So guess what? In that nice, smooth asphalt road, I am a giant pothole!"

Me too! LOL!

Love, Cat

[get the red out]

18. Nope, not their prophets telling them

It's their "profits" telling them.......................

[Tumbulu]

19. back in the early 80's I had a lot of discussions about

these very issues with a German grad student friend. And then again through the 90's. She told me that Feminism in Germany was about women's work being valued (ie the traditional work women did- raising children, nurturing, care-taking , tending a home and spirit and soul of the family). That in the US is seemed to her as though it was all about encouraging if not demanding that women behave like men. Feel like men, and anyone who dared to follow the traditional women's nature should be penalized for doing so. Men who exhibited the sensitivity expected of women were also penalized. It still seems to be true today, but it also seems to be changing (or at least I hope so)

The women forced to leave their children to work at low paying jobs while the kids were institutionalized were being punished, imo by this system.

What I want to see is that all work- whether it be restorative, nurturing, care-taking, bridge building, architecture, science, farming, software designing, all work be valued as part of our system. That we need all and that family work that is unpaid is still work and society needs to support those doing it somehow.

I consider myself to be a German feminist.

[mntleo2]

25. The W.O.R.K. Act

...after Mrs Romney had her hissy fit because a reporter said she "did not work", some U.S. Representatives composed a bill called the W.O.R.K. Act (Women's Option to Raise Kids). It is an act that basically says that the double standard for poor women forced into the labor force should also be supported to raise their kids. Of course it is still languishing in some committee who are ignoring it. Let your Representative know you support this bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/work-act-low-income-moms-ann-romney_n_1434384.html

Now THIS is something that "Jesus would do..."

Hope this helps

Love, Cat

[Tumbulu]

30. yes, sounds like a great bill

but since it is sponsored by democrats.....I doubt that it will get far. And the republicans only want women with husbands supporting them to stay home with the kids. Never single moms it seems.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your entire OP and find it all very interesting. Thanks for writing it and sharing with us.

[Tumbulu]

12. Priests are not allowed to marry

so that the property of the church does not become the property of the priests children. It was all about inheritance matters. In the early church priests married. This is a new thing- you can google it, something like the 12th century.

[mntleo2]

14. ALL marriage is just a contract ...

...anyone can find this out when they file for a divorce, lol. Suddenly all that "love" you used to have is all focused on the contract made after the vows that was in reality about who owns what.

I read once, tho I am not sure this is true, that the marriage ceremony the Church uses came from the Greeks. They created marriage because of inheritance for two unrelated men when they wanted each other to inherit and neither had children. The Church took it over and made it into what it is today, so some say. From what I know about the Church and how it took over local customs and then "sanitized" them, this could be true. It is beyond funny.

My East Indian Christian friends I mention in the OP told me a sad story about the history of their church. When the Portuguese invaded them in the 15th century, the invaders came upon their church, which Thomas The Doubter had established soon after Jesus' death. These idiots burned the church to the ground because they said it was not really Christian when they saw there were no statues in the church. This is because their church had been established by a man who was Jewish and they strictly followed the Jewish tradition not to have "any graven image". The Portuguese church had Greek and Roman roots, which simply converted those beautiful statues of gods and goddesses into saints, Jesus and Mary.

To me, if this is true about the marriage ceremony, I cannot help but be amused because this would be the ultimate irony when these religious wingnuts proclaim marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.

LOL!

Love, Cat

[Smilo]

10. Fascinating and informative and mind-boggling

Thank you mntleo2 for posting this amazing work.

Personally I am a Spiritualist and have no time for the mega-churches that seem to demand $$$ to save your soul, who denounce everyone is a sinner and to be saved you have to fork over beaucoup dollars.

As for Jesus being married - absolutely, I think a man who had so many demands made of him would have found a good woman to share, confide, lean on and be his "staff of comfort"

[findrskeep]

29. The Mary Magdalene and Jesus Energies

are around big time. I'm not surprised to see this thread with everything that I've been experiencing lately. It's been an unbelievable week filled with this energy. I just wrote a long blog about it with lots of links to other sites with more information on this.

I attended a Mary Magdalene group/circle a couple months ago and the instructor was just a wealth of information about this exact subject. In her's and others' research, she believes that Mary Magdalene was Jesus's wife and that they had children. It's fascinating stuff.

I had never really thought much about it either way, but I will tell you this..I borrowed some books from a friend by Kathleen McGowan about this subject and as soon as I started reading the first book, all kinds of sychronicities began to happen. There's an interesting video on youtube with an interview with the author. She categorizes them as fiction but in the interview she says they aren't, but she had to do them that way. I'll go post the blog with all the links in the blogging thread in case anyone is interested. I really do feel there is truth in this. And one thing is for sure, their energy is becoming more prevalent now.